The present invention relates to a system, including methods and devices, utilizing wireless sensor devices and RFID (radio-frequency identification) transponders. Specifically, the present invention relates to a system incorporating novel devices and methods that enable point-of-use and on-demand commissioning of RFID transponder-equipped wireless sensors.
Radio-frequency identification (RFID) transponders enable improved identification and tracking of objects by encoding data electronically in a compact tag or label. And, advantageously, the compact tag or label does not need external, optically recognizable or human-readable markings. In fact, using the Gen2 EPC specification, a three-meter read-distance for RFID transponders is common—even on high-speed material handling lines.
Radio-frequency identification (RFID) transponders, typically thin transceivers that include an integrated circuit chip having radio frequency circuits, control logic, memory and an antenna structure mounted on a supporting substrate, enable vast amounts of information to be encoded and stored and have unique identification. Commissioning, the process of encoding specific information (for example, data representing an object identifier, the date-code, batch, customer name, origin, destination, quantity, and items) associated with an object (for example, a shipping container), associates a specific object with a unique RFID transponder. The commissioned transponder responds to coded RF signals and, therefore, readily can be interrogated by external devices to reveal the data associated with the transponder.
Current classes of RFID transponders rank into two primary categories: active RFID transponders and passive RFID transponders. Active RFID transponders include an integrated power source capable of self-generating signals, which may be used by other, remote reading devices to interpret the data associated with the transponder. Active transponders include batteries and, historically, are considered considerably more expensive than passive RFID transponders. Passive RFID transponders backscatter incident RF energy to specially designed remote devices such as interrogators.
Combining the benefits of the latest technology in RFID transponders with sensing devices, a broader class of devices called wireless sensors is emerging. Wireless sensors have a unique identity, sense one or more attributes within its environment, and report its identity and data corresponding to the sensed attributes. For example, a wireless sensor interprets environmental conditions such as temperature, moisture, sunlight, seismic activity, biological, chemical or nuclear materials, specific molecules, shock, vibration, location, or other environmental parameters. Wireless sensors are distributed nodes of computing networks that are interconnected by wired and wireless interfaces.
Wireless sensors, made using silicon circuits, polymer circuits, optical modulation indicia, an encoded quartz crystal diode, or Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) materials to affect radio frequency or other signaling methods, communicate wirelessly to other devices. For example, certain embodiments of wireless sensors communicate on a peer-to-peer basis to an interrogator or a mobile computer. Communication methods include narrow band, wide band, ultra wide band, or other means of radio or signal propagation methods.
Additional examples of RFID transponders, wireless tags, and wireless sensors are more fully discussed in this inventor's co-pending U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0080819, entitled “Systems and Methods for Deployment and Recycling of RFID Tags, Wireless Sensors, and the Containers Attached thereto,” published on 20 Apr. 2006, which is incorporated by reference for all purposes in this document.
One problem of prior-art systems, such as conventional print labels or bar code systems includes a requirement for line of sight and an overdependence on the optical quality of the label. Many factors can render such a label unreadable including printing errors, excess ink, insufficient ink, physical destruction of the markings, obstruction of the markings due to foreign matter, and, in extreme cases, outright deception by placing an altered label over the top of such a print label.
RFID transponder labeling eliminates the need for an optically readable print label and overcomes all of the shortcomings related to print quality and the need for line of sight to scan the label. Moreover, RFID transponder labels enable secure data encryption, making outright deception considerably less likely to occur. However, current RFID label systems have their own limitations as well.
One shortfall of prior-art RFID systems is the total cost for encoding and applying wireless sensors. In the case of manual encoding and application of RFID transponders or wireless sensors, the cost is dominated by labor costs. Therefore business process integration plays a significant role in reducing the total cost of ownership of tagging objects. For example, in many supply chain applications, case picking is performed during the fulfillment of a customer order, this is an operation where individual cases or groups of cases are manually handled. Similarly in receiving of goods at retail, manufacturing, or distribution receiving docks are other business process where individual cases are manually handled. In either of these types of business processes where individual cartons are handled, there is an opportunity to encode and apply an RFID tag or wireless sensor to each carton on a selective basis.
Generating a unique serial number is imperative, and is required for EPCglobal RFID tagging implementations. Serialization requires a central issuing authority of numbers for manufacturers, products, and items to guarantee uniqueness and to avoid duplication of numbers. Blocks of numbers are distributed to remote locations globally. Unless a product (or SKU) is serialized at one location, the numbering space is usually partitioned according to some method, or each remote location receives each number one-by-one. Either way, there is eventually a reconciliation of serial number usage with a granularity of either one or several numbers at a time.
A preferred method of generating unique serial numbers is to assign unique numbers in a central location, such as in a label converter facility where unique bar coded labels are printed. Each unique label is then packed and shipped to remote locations, usually either in sheets or rolls. Upon arrival at a manufacturing facility, rolls are loaded onto high speed label applicators that apply one serialized label onto each carton. As those serialized cartons move through the supply chain, they may eventually arrive at a case pick location, a receiving dock, or similar location where a serialized carton is selected for having an RFID transponder applied to it. Using a bar code scanner to read one or more bar codes sufficient information can be collected to uniquely encode that data into an RFID transponder and apply it to that carton.
The uniqueness of an identifier is critical to the success of almost any tracking system. Assuring uniqueness is not necessarily simple. A generically descriptive bar code can be matched to authorizations for selected numbering systems that provide additional data fields including a unique serial number or using algorithms that assure uniqueness through numerical representations of time and space.
Certain prior art systems use printer encoders to merge the printing and RFID transponder encoding operations into a single atomic transaction. This method is more expensive in every respect. It requires mobile distributed printing with nearly perfect networking implementations in order to achieve a smooth, easy, and regular manual transponder application process. This all comes at a higher price, size, and weight. Prior art implementations tend not to be mobile, as represented by U.S. Pat. No. 7,066,667 issued to Chapman et al. on 27 Jun. 2006 and include U.S. Pat. No. 5,899,476 issued to Barrus et al. on 31 May 2005, or by U.S. Pat. No. 6,246,326 issued to Wiklof et al. on 12 Jun. 2001, describe a device that commissions an RFID transponder with a printed label. This approach, however, introduces unnecessary waste, cost, and propensities for error. There is a growing category of applications that do not require anything other than a custom-encoded RFID transponder. This prior art calls for the inclusion of label printer hardware and related consumable materials that are not necessary for many RFID applications. Unneeded printer mechanisms create unnecessary complexities, size, and weight. In some instances this additional bulk hinders practical mobile applications. The result is that tagging solutions that include printing result in a higher total cost of ownership than a pure RF tag encoding system.
U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0227528 by Hohberger et al. published on 11 Dec. 2003 describes another attempt at improving demand-print labels by providing a device that combines two standard, die-cut rolls of media, one of which may be a roll of RFID transponders, and the second, print-label stock, in an attempt to provide on-demand smart labels. As with the aforementioned references, this approach adds unnecessary cost and complexity by combining RFID transponders with demand-printed labels.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,382,784, published on Jan. 17, 1995, inventor Eberhardt describes a hand-held dual technology identification tag reading head with a gun-shaped housing and a trigger switch with two different ON positions. This patent discloses a hand-held device with a light transmissive window at one end, through which bar code scanning light passes and around which an RFID reading antenna is positioned. Eberhardt discloses embodiments for reading either bar code or RFID information from a label using a hand-held, dual-position trigger actuated device. This patent fails to offer any methods or devices for reading bar code information and using that information to encode an RFID transponder. In particular this patent fails to disclose any methods for conveyance of RFID transponders as part of a well-controlled transponder encoding process.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,486,780, published on Nov. 26 2002, inventors Garber et al disclose a hand-held item location device using RFID to seek and find library books. The disclosure emphasizes the importance of read range over great distances and large populations of RFID transponders, a quality that runs counter to the present invention that teaches how to localize radio frequency fields for programming only selected RFID transponders presented in succession for well-controlled encoding. Garber teaches techniques for searching and reading large collections of transponders in a library, not semi-automated transponder commissioning processes. The physics of Garber's invention is poorly suited to programming anything other than one transponder at a time that is carefully isolated by great distances from any other RFID transponder to avoid programming information into the wrong transponder.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,280,159, published on Jan. 18, 1994, inventors Schulz et al. discloses a pistol-grip RFID reader with a separate hand-held data terminal which together are used to read RFID transponders. Again this invention, like other prior art fails to teach a viable method or apparatus for reliable commissioning large volumes of RFID transponders.
Inventors Main and Kassens disclose in U.S. Pat. No. 5,763,867 published on Jun. 9, 1998, a hand-held data terminal with various scanner modules for the purpose of data acquisition. This patent, along with their subsequent and related disclosure in U.S. Pat. No. 5,962,837 published on Oct. 5, 1999, are examples of hand-held data collection devices for sweeping an RFID interrogation beam about an broad area around an operator (for example, a storage room or bulk-shelf location in a warehouse). This operating distance, however, lies beyond a close-range distance of a couple of inches and is limited to interrogation and data-acquisition, not encoding. Further, such devices are unable to limit their communication to RFID transponders that are in close-proximity of a few inches of the operator holding a hand-held encoder that includes a near field coupler.
Inventors Carrender, Landt, and Speirs disclose in their Dec. 15, 1998 U.S. Pat. No. 5,850,187 another RFID reader that is designed “to allow for identification of objects at locations removed from the remote host unit”. This patent along with their Jun. 20, 2000 U.S. Pat. No. 6,078,251, “retrieve object identification data from a selected object.” fail to address controlling the inherently propagative nature of the electric fields of radio waves in order to restrict their range to within the width of a single transponder.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,195,053 published on 27 Feb. 2001 by inventors Kodukula and Ackley discloses an antenna consisting of a U-shaped conductive bracket, which supports an optical reader and communicates with RFID transponders. However, this disclosure does not address the need for shielding and near-field coupler design to optimize the inherent long-range characteristics of the RFID transponder.
Inventors Helton and Wiklof's 19 Mar. 2002 U.S. Pat. No. 6,357,662 discloses a device that a user can selectively control a bar code scanner and an RFID reader to acquire information about an asset. However, this disclosure does not address creating and encoding a unique identifier for attachment to and subsequent identification of the asset.
Zebra Technologies Corporation's Tsirline is the principal inventor of U.S. Pat. No. 6,848,616 (published on 1 Feb. 2005 to Tsirline et al.) with the title “System and method for selective communication with RFID transponders”. In that patent the inventors describe a system having an RFID transceiver that is adapted to communicate exclusively with a single RFID transponder. They disclose that the system includes a printhead and a magnetic flux generator having a planar coil formed as a trace upon a first layer of a printed circuit board. As with the aforementioned references, this approach adds unnecessary cost and complexity by combining RFID transponders with demand-printed labels, and uses a near field coupler design that does not concentrate the magnetic flux as selectively as the present invention disclosed herein.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,223,030 by Fessler et al (published on 29 May 2007) and U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,249,819 (issued on 31 Jul. 2007) and 7,187,294 (issued on 6 Mar. 2007) both by Burdette et al, (inventors of Lexmark International, Inc.) disclose a printer/encoder system, and attempt to overcome the problems of detecting and locating an RFID inlay that is embedded somewhere in a printed label stock. The present invention overcomes that problem by eliminating the (larger) label, and only encoding RFID transponders, which generally have a physical outer dimension that very closely matches the embedded RFID transponder inlay dimensions.
United States Published Patent Application No. 2007/0150219, published on 28 Jun. 2007, inventor Cawker et al. of Weyerhaeuser Company, discloses a method of applying and verifying RFID transponders using a conveyor for moving objects along a predetermined path. Their invention makes use of cameras to identify the proper position for a label. The present invention overcomes the size and cost requirements of a system comprised of a conveyor and cameras by using human operators for motion and simple reflective beam sensors for spatial positioning and label placement.
Inventor Roberts in U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2005/0283272, published on 22 Dec. 2005, teaches of a mobile encoding system for commissioning RFID transponders. Wherein, Roberts claims an apparatus for dispensing and activating electronic monitoring devices comprising: a) a receptacle capable of storing a supply of unactivated electronic monitoring devices; b) a separator cooperating with said receptacle for removing respective individual monitoring devices from the receptacle; c) an activator cooperating with said separator and configured to communicate an activation signal to an individual monitoring device removed from the receptacle by the separator; d) a verifier configured to communicate with the individual monitoring device subsequent to the activation signal to obtain a verification signal confirming that the individual monitoring device has been activated; and e) a dispenser cooperating with said verifier and operable for dispensing the individual monitoring device after receipt of a verification signal confirming that the individual monitoring device has been activated. Roberts patent application 2005/0283272 does not teach how an EM device is attached to an object that will be monitored. There is no mention of adhesives, screws, or any other means of attachment. This is in contrast to the present invention where adhesives are used to attach an RFID transponder to an object of the proper object class. In the case of an SGTIN, the term object class refers to the GTIN (Global Trade Item Number) or SKU (Stock Keeping Unit). The term object class would correspond to other class definitions for other GS1 key types that are for example defined in the EPCglobal Tag Data Standards. An object is an instance of the corresponding object class and an object class instance number is a numerical representation of an object class instance. In fact, it can be inferred that Roberts' EM devices have no exposed adhesive while they are being encoded, sorted, and stacked. Exposing an adhesive during these steps would obviously result in an unintended grouping of EM devices, stuck together, preventing passage of any additional EM devices. The problems addressed by the present invention require an additional and vital step that is not taught by Roberts' patent application: to associate and preferably attach an EM device to the correct type of object. Associating an encoded EM device of the correct type to an object of the correct type, is a vital step that is significantly prone to human error. Roberts does not teach any method for advancing and detaching programmed EM devices or RFID tags from a roll of conveyance web or release liner. Roberts only teaches that tags can be cut from a roll of EM devices that are separated by a perforation, but does provide any explanation regarding forward advancement of such a roll in coordination with the programming of EM devices: if the process is a continuous motion, or a start-stop action that is coordinated with the tag programming process. This is in contrast to Roberts' detailed explanation of the movements of other parts of the EM device dispensing apparatus. Detaching adhesive-backed tags is a critical process that leads to a transfer and subsequent attachment to an object that is only of the correct object class type.
Inventor Landt in U.S. Pat. No. 6,677,852, published on 13 Jan. 2004, teaches a: supply reel and take up reel means; radio frequency shielding; a means for associating data read from an RFID transponder with new data; a means for encoding authorization from an external authority for a selected numbering system; a plurality of authorization transponders adapted to provide the RFID transponder encoder device sets of preauthorized blocks of unique numbers for specific object classes; and acquiring object class information to encode multiple instances of unique number from that object class instance information in the transponder. Landt fails to describe how the uniqueness of numbers is assured. In fact, the issue of uniqueness is not adequately addressed in his U.S. Pat. No. 6,677,852. His only mention of uniqueness is suggested only as a possibility, whereas it is actually imperative to the proper functioning of a global tracking system such as that which is enabled by the EPCglobal numbering system. Landt fails to describe any authorizations that are related to numerical uniqueness. Instead, Landt's authorization keys must match a security field that is already present within a tag. Therefore Landt's authorization tags are like a password that unlocks a tag to enable it to receive new data. This is in contrast to an authorization to a tag encoder to authorize it to issue unique numbers to tags, regardless of any password requirements that may or may not exist. Despite Landt's efforts to broadly describe the instructions, he falls short of showing that he in any way anticipates the need for or challenges of writing unique serial numbers to uniquely identify RFID tags. His only mention of tag ID, number field 208, only relates to the essential presence of the field and the possible need to search through a population of tags by using the tag ID field. Furthermore, Landt demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the vital importance of having a unique tag ID, which is central to the premise of tracking objects within a global supply chain, when he states “The tag ID number field 204 provides a serial number or other identifying number for the data tag 102, which may be a unique number.”, which indicates that Landt did not understand that uniquely numbered tags are an essential part of using numbering systems such as the GS1 EPCglobal system. To further illustrate this point, Landt makes no mention of any numbering system that would be well known to those skilled in the art to assure numerical uniqueness in a tag ID field 204 or any other field disclosed in his invention. In Landt's discussion of writing to RFID tags, he never provides any information that would suggest that his invention is capable of assuring that unique tag ID's are written to tags, nor even describes writing tag ID's in any manner. Therefore it is apparent that U.S. Pat. No. 6,677,852 falls short of disclosing a data carrier of any kind that carries with it unique authorizations that are to be used by an RFID tag encoder for assuring that any tag ID's written to an RFID tag originate from a central number-issuing authority (such as from Uniform Code Council, GS1, Auto-ID Center, EPCglobal, ISO, etc.).
In U.S. Pat. No. 7,114,655, published on 3 Oct. 2006, inventor Chapman teaches the use of an RFID printer system, a printer programming language that contains RFID encoding instructions, and a conveyor system to move objects through the printing and encoding process. The prior art teaches how to encode data into an RFID label. The present invention teaches how to encode data into an RFID tag. An RFID tag is not an RFID label. An RFID label contains additional face stock material as a printing surface. That surface is printed with human readable and or optically machine-readable indicia. The printed information is not required for reading data using a radio frequency signal.
Chapman's invention requires a conveyor which is not required for the solution that the present invention teaches. In fact, a conveyor would in many instances be either an added capital expense or a hindrance to a business process for tagging products away from a conveyor line.
Chapman's invention teaches that preset spatial relationships exist between the bar code label and the RFID tag that is to be placed onto a package. A key assumption of the prior art is that the surface of the package or the contents thereof will not interfere with the proper operation of the RFID tag. This is in contrast to the present invention whereby specifically identified locations are marked on the package that indicate where the RFID will function properly. Specifically what Chapman fails to address in his invention is the need for placement of an RFID tag in a location on a carton such that the carton and its contents do not interfere with the nominal operation of the tag as it would have operated in free space. In stark contrast to Chapman's teachings and suggestions, the present invention, by way of the motion of a human hand and arm, can achieve full six degrees of freedom for the placement of an RFID tag in a location that corresponds to the sweet spot of each particular carton or package. The present invention addresses the need for six-axes of motion, placement on a predefined sweet spot, correlation to each specific type of product, and the possible need for tags to have a thickness dimension.
Chapman's invention does not teach the use of a trigger that is responsive to the applicator's position and orientation relative to a tagging sweet spot. In the present invention, several means are disclosed for triggering the application of an encoded tag only when the applicator is within striking distance of the target location. Such a trigger goes beyond the temporal or spatial inaccuracies that would result from using a conventional human-operated trigger from a button-press or keypad input.
Lastly, Chapman's invention requires the data stream to also contain information that describes the location of the RFID inlay within the RFID label or tag. Without that information, the prior art is unable to direct the RFID interrogation fields to the correct area on each label. The prior art depends on having these external programming instructions for proper functioning.
Inventor Waters in U.S. Pat. No. 7,077,489, published on 18 Jul. 2006, teaches an apparatus for printing and memory tag application onto a base medium. Waters fails to make the case for achieving the required functionality on a typical RFID tag. Water's invention is restricted to the use of specially prepared RFID tags that have adhesive on both sides of the tag. This unconventional tag configuration must overcome the adhesive forces that attach the tag to the webbing by having stronger adhesive forces that provide the force that is necessary to overcome the first adhesive bond. Waters fails to explain this acute short coming and relies upon this critical factor for successful transfer of the tag on each “thump”. In the absence of a proper control of this critical factor, the tags will not release, or will partially release, causing the applicator to clog or jam. The present invention overcomes these sever short comings by using a conventional RFID tag with adhesive on only one side, eliminating any chance of a misbalance between adhesive forces between a first and a second side of the RFID tag. This is a significant and novel differentiation from the Waters patent.
Inventor Koenck in U.S. Pat. No. 5,825,045, published on 20 Oct. 1998, teaches a housing assembly for enclosing the internal antenna and a handle coupled to a surface of the housing. Koenck is among many inventors who disclose hand-held devices that function in an automatic data capture role, including bar code scanners, portable data terminals, and RFID tag readers. However, the present invention stands apart from this and other prior art in providing an ergonomically superior solution for a human-operated RFID tag encoder that directly applies encoded RFID tags to the face of a target object. Neither Koenck nor a myriad of other inventors disclose how RFID tags are to be uniquely encoded, verified, and efficiently applied to objects using a single swipe of an operator's hand and arm motion.
In U.S. Pat. No. 6,963,351, published on 8 Nov. 2005, inventors Squires et al describe a radio frequency identification tag non-destructively connected to the core adjacent the first or second end thereof to allow non-destructive removal of the tag, the tag having an aperture formed there through that is configured to allow passage through the tag of at least a portion of the spindle when the core is disposed on the spindle, and the aperture being aligned with the rotation axis. Attachment to the spindle requires a circular shaped loop antenna element which those skilled in the art understand involves more manufacturing steps than a conventional UHF RFID tag of the present invention. The additional steps include critical mechanical dimensioning to both ensure proper mechanical clearances as well as maintaining proper tuning of the antenna across the full range of operating conditions whereby full or empty rolls of media have the propensity to differently alter the tuning characteristics of the circular RFID device. The present invention overcomes the limitations of the need for an RFID memory device that it attached to the spindle of a roll of consumable items.
Inventor Nye in U.S. Pat. No. 7,421,367, published on 22 Jun. 2006, teaches a housing assembly for enclosing the internal antenna or a mounting mechanism for selectively coupling the encoding system to a provided structure. The present invention encloses the antenna, interrogator, drive train, and most other components in a housing for protection, but also to allow the operator of the encoding device to easily attach and remove an RFID transponder cartridge. The novel design of the housing and chassis allows this by grouping and hiding all other components that do not need to be accessed by the operator. By doing so, it's obvious to the operator at first sight where and how the cartridge attaches. Nye's intention is to simply use the housing and structure to mount all components and to protect those components. The present invention's housing design goes beyond Nye's intention by allowing the operator of the encoder to easily mount a cartridge given the housing and structure design.
Inventor Nikitin in U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2008/0184177, published on 7 Aug. 2008, teaches the measuring of the angular velocity of a moving roll in order to monitor the performance of that roll. Nikitin is measuring the angular velocity of a roll, not the rate at which a transponder peels from the release liner. The present invention is concerned with matching the peel rate of a transponder to that that of the rate of movement of the target surface, both linear velocity measurements. Additionally, the rate measurements are used in the present invention not to simply monitor a system, but used as input data in an algorithm to successfully apply an RFID transponder to a target surface in one swipe of the operators arm.
Inventor Eberhardt in U.S. Pat. No. 6,130,613, published on 10 Oct. 2000, teaches of applying an RFID transponder to a target surface. Eberhardt discloses the design and production of a RF enabled stamp that a postal consumer can use like a traditional stamp. This includes the customer peeling the stamp off a release liner, or licking the back of stamp; then applying the stamp to a letter or parcel. The underlying concern of the present invention is reducing the cost of encoding and applying an RFID transponder to an object. The methods of applying an RF stamp to a target surface, as disclosed by Eberhardt, are not easily and quickly conducted. The consumer is going through multiple steps, unnecessary motions to apply an RF stamp. The present invention allows the operator of an RF encoder to encode and apply an RFID transponder in one motion of the operator's arm. This is certainly not the case intended by U.S. Pat. No. 6,130,613.
Inventor Feltz in U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2005/0280537, published on 22 Dec. 2005, discloses a system for reading and writing to an RFID transponder. The present invention cannot be anticipated by Feltz because an encoder is no more a printer than a tag is a label. Labels, particularly “SmartLabels” include a significant amount of printable surface area on the face stock material for printing symbols that are both human and machine readable. RFID tags and transponders may or may not contain such printable area, instead RFID tags and transponders provide wireless identification functions that are meant to supplement the optically readable functions of labels.
Tags are not Labels.
A key characteristic of the encoder of the present invention is that the encoder encodes tags of many different types, shapes, sizes, and thicknesses; which includes efficiently encoding thick tags, tags that are thicker than a sheet of paper because a foam layer is present. Such a tag design is advantageous for tagging metals or liquid containers.
Feltz illustrates in FIG. 2 the type of RFID transponder that is added to labels in order to make them compliant with retailer and DOD mandates. It is well known to those skilled in the art that such an RFID transponder will not operate when placed near metal or liquid. Those skilled in the art know that metal detunes the RFID transponder's antenna, and that liquids absorb radio energy just as they would in a microwave oven, resulting in heat, not RF communication. There are two dominant and notoriously well known mandates—Wal-Mart and the DOD. Both of those mandates clearly stated that only an RFID transponder had to be added to the previous labeling requirements. Those mandates also required that the transponders work after they were applied to the goods.
Retailer and DOD tagging mandates were clear, that the goods being tagged had to read, regardless of their construction, even foil-wrapped cartons, metalized mylar wrappers, and cases of liquids of all types had to read. This posed a problem for customers that bought RFID printers from Feltz's company. They found that the RFID tags that were encoded on his printer were not able to function when placed onto about 20% of the goods that are normally found in a retail supply chain. As such, Feltz does not really solve the mandate problem that he refers to in his paragraph [0005] where he makes the inaccurate statement that “One requirement is that certain record members e.g., compliance labels contain transponders”. Feltz has it backwards; the U.S. Department of Defense and Wal-Mart RFID tagging requirements did not require any new labels at all. In fact, both mandates (which were the dominant, if not the only ones at the time) were written to provide their suppliers with a full range of compliance options, including the option of embedding an RFID transponder directly into a corrugated carton (for example), which would completely eliminate the need for any kind of label whatsoever.
Feltz' printer mechanism did not actually need print heads, ribbons, or ink to comply with the mandates; yet his design is completely based around these unnecessary elements. Even worse, those elements prevent his invention from dispensing the thicker type of RFID tag that actually works on what those skilled in the art refer to as “RF-challenged”goods that contain metal or liquid. Specifically, the anticipating reference is inoperable with thicker tags because the fixed spacing between platen roll 63 and print head 69 of the Feltz printer invention is sized for thin paper-like labels, not thick dielectric-backed tags. Attempting to encode tags with a dielectric foam spacer would clog the printer with a mass of sticky detached RFID tags that would quickly accumulate in a useless clump at print head 69. The extra bulk reduces the mobility of his printer and consumes significantly more power, whereby ruling out any anticipation of a battery operated mobile encoder.
Tags: Thick or Thin.
The encoder of the present invention programs and verifies tags and transponders of almost any type including transponders with a dielectric spacer built into them. Note that this type of compliance tag is much thicker than the labels that Feltz discloses in his FIG. 2. A transponder with a dielectric spacer is at least ⅛″ thick and will easily pass through the feed mechanism of the present invention.
Smaller Tags.
Since the mandates did not require any more labels, and the items that are to be tagged include branded items and containers, the brand owners do not want their brand images and products with big stickers all over them. Therefore, smaller and less obvious is better and more appealing to consumers and brand owners. Feltz struggled with this, as is stated in his paragraphs [0005] and [0007] wherein he states that his invention provides for labels that have transponders spaced at a distance of 6 inches, which is an improvement over prior art. It is obvious that Feltz understands that smaller is better when it comes to dispensing large amounts of unnecessary label material.
Poor Resolution.
Had Feltz anticipated the elimination of the print head 69 he could have moved his encoding antenna 500 and 500′ closer to delaminator 64′. This would have allowed him to use a smaller label (or even a tag) with a pitch on the order of 0.6″ instead of 6″. This would have allowed him to put 10 times more tags onto a roll and create far less waste. It is obvious that Feltz did not anticipate any of these things because his antenna selectivity is inadequate for that. His use of microstrip antennae 500′ or 550′ do not have enough selectivity as shown in his spatial signal strength plots of FIGS. 28 and 29 and his statements in his paragraph [0068] that the tightest recommended tag spacing is 2 inches. Had Feltz anticipated a printerless encoder, he would have strived for spacing that is much tighter than 2 inch tag pitch.
Inventor Bennett in U.S. Pat. No. 6,830,181, published on 14 Dec. 2004, discloses a combination RFID and bar code scanner. Wherein an operator holds a handheld device in one location without moving the device and is able to read a bar code and read/write to an RFID transponder in the near vicinity. In the scenario that the RFID transponder is already on the package, Bennett's invention is an efficient device to encode RFID transponders with information gathered from the bar code scan. Though in the scenario that the RFID transponder is not already on the package, Bennett's novel ideas are no longer of much value. At which point, a majority of the operator's time and energy will go towards peeling an RFID transponder from its release liner and placing it on the package. The present invention increases the operator's efficiency by peeling and encoding the RFID transponder before it is placed on the package. In the present invention, the encoding occurs after the operator scans the bar code on the package and before the operator is able to reach and remove the transponder from the encoder. As such, the present invention allows an operator to be that much more efficient in commissioning RFID transponders by not waiting on encoding and peeling. By not having a means to peel an RFID transponder from its release liner, Bennett's invention is at a major disadvantage in tagging large volumes of item level consumer goods.
Inventor Sureaud in U.S. Pat. No. 7,320,432, published on 25 Jan. 2005, discloses a system for reading and encoding the output of an identification printer. The system provides a portable device that can be adapted to the output of standard bar code printers, capable of reading the bar code of labels produced by the printer and encoding the chip of the same label with the information read without any modification and interaction being required with the system installed to which the printer is attached. The system disclosed by Sureaud applies to the niche application of luggage RFID labels. When compared to the application of item level consumer good tagging, the prior art fails to address 1) the difficulty of efficiently applying RFID transponders to an object, and 2) the difficulty of producing a unique data identifier based off the items stock-keeping unit (SKU). The invention disclosed by Sureaud simply coverts a bar codes numerical string to a binary string. Whereas, the present invention is reading in a SKU, converting that SKU to a unique identifier, and encoding an RFID transponder with that unique identifier. It's important to note that a SKU is not a unique identifier. For example, two packages of identical socks will have the same SKU, but the data encoded into their RFID transponders will be unique to each package. The bar code scanner presented in the present invention is in one way novel in how the data read from the bar code scanner is used in producing the data encoded into an RFID transponder.
Inventors Sano et al in U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2005/0218219, published on 6 Oct. 2005, discloses a label and RFID tag issuing apparatus. Wherein, the label and RFID tag issuing apparatus, comprises: a sensor for detecting presence of an RFID tag attached to a container; a printer for recording information that corresponds to a bar-code affixed to the container; a bar-code reader for reading the bar-code recorded on the container; an RFID tag reader/writer for writing information corresponding to the bar-code to the RFID tag; and a controller for controlling all of said components. Sano is addressing a niche application of RFID technology (factory automation); whereas the present invention is concerned with item level consumer good tagging. Inventor Sano's invention fails to address the needs unique to item level tagging, wherein: no mention or concern is expressed regarding operator efficiency in encoding and apply RFID tags, and no means is provided to ensure unique serialization of an RFID tag while operating off network. Lastly, as mentioned previously, the bar code scanner presented in the present invention is in one way novel in how the data read from the bar code scanner is used in producing the data encoded into an RFID transponder.
In U.S. Pat. No. 6,884,312, published 26 Apr. 2005, inventors Mitchell et al describe a tape applicator with no reference to RFID tags.
In U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0045724, published 3 Mar. 2005, inventors Tsirline et al describe a printer system comprised of a printhead and RFID components to solve object identification problems. By contrast, the present invention clearly demonstrates that all aspects of printing on, with, or near RFID tags to facilitate identification is a wasteful and unnecessary encumbrance to efficient RFID tagging operations.
In U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0059880, published 2 Sep. 2008, inventors Klinefelter et al describe a card supply for use with an identification card printing system comprising: a card hopper containing a stack of cards; and a supply circuit mounted to the card hopper and having a memory containing supply information relating to parameters of the card supply. This patent application in contrast to the present invention fails to address the challenges of using a radio frequency identification transponder to provide information about encoding a supply of unencoded RFID transponders. In the present invention the same RFID interrogator that is used to encode RFID transponders is also capable of reading an RFID transponder mounted to the loaded cartridge, and is also preferably capable of filtering out its response to interrogation or programming of RFID transponders. Although Klinefelter describes a dispensing system that remotely resembles the present invention, the inventor clearly fails to address the complexities and interactions between transponders if he had even remotely considered the possibility that the card that are dispensed from his hopper are RFID tags. Furthermore, he fails to address the use of a single RFID interrogator for encoding cards (or tags) as well as interrogating the memory device that contains information about the card supply. The present invention addresses and overcomes these challenges.
In U.S. Pat. No. 7,664,257, published on 16 Feb. 2010, inventors Hohberger and Tsirline disclose a system for authenticating consumable media such as plastic cards, ink, or ribbon cartridges that include an anti-piracy deterrent. The inventors disclose the use of RFID transponders with anti-collision protocols but fail to anticipate that the consumable media could also be a supply of RFID transponders. This is evident in the omission of any attempt to filter out or separate responses from transponders that are themselves consumable media, nor do Hohberger and Tsirline address the challenges of encoding such consumable media using the same interrogator that is used to identify the supply of media. The present invention addresses and solves these challenges.
The present invention manages EPC binary encodings. This is unlike U.S. Pat. No. 7,827,200 wherein serialization of EPC identifiers is managed using the unserialized portion of an EPC ID URN. Encoders read and write the binary encodings of EPC tags, and are therefore able to directly manage object class uniqueness at that level. This avoids inconsistencies that may arise from improper use of the GS1 Tag Data Standard, specifically where the standard teaches that the filter bits are not part of the pure identity. However, in reality GTIN bar codes are frequently used to identify items at item, case, or pallet level when commissioning tags. This poses a problem for a uniqueness-assuring method that only uses the pure identity because a GTIN-14 case level bar code can be scanned in order to identify objects for tagging at the item level. This is frequently encountered during tag-ups where entire warehouses must be encoded with item-level tags. Using the pure URI method described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,827,200 would result in items that are improperly encoded using case level URI's. The present invention compensates for this real world phenomenon by using the filter value as a correct indication of the intended packaging level and is used to correctly manage the uniqueness of the object class.A second reason that the present invention is an improvement over prior art for real world EPC encoding is for in-store tagging. Frequently suppliers fail to commission RFID tags onto items as the retailer may have instructed. In that event, the retailer has to quickly muster resources to apply RFID tags to items as they arrive in their stores or distribution centers. Following a strict pure identity serialization method described by U.S. Pat. No. 7,827,200 would result in each supplier having to allocate blocks of serialized numbers to each retailer, each retailer's distribution center, and each retailer's store either in advance or in real time. In a strict pure-identity-managed system that approach is indeed required, but does not scale globally nor operate efficiently. The present invention, by managing the uniqueness of EPC binary encodings circumvents this problem by allowing the retailer to designate an unused or unconventional partition value to create a separately managed numbering space that is independent from the space that would be managed by the pure identity approach. The supplier would for example use PV=x, while each retailer that they ship their goods to would use PV=y where y is not x. Although the resulting pure identity would be the same, the EPC binary encodings would be different. Therefore the prior art does not adequately solve real world serialization problems at the encoder level that are overcome by the present invention.US Patent Application 2007/0229267 by Ken Traub also has the same problem by teaching a system that operates on pure identities, a solution that lacks the ability to operate properly when embedded within an RFID tag encoder.US Patent Applications 2005/0253722 and 2005/0252970, U.S. Pat. No. 7,322,523, and U.S. Pat. No. 7,336,175 all similarly describe a network-based tag provisioning system that uses a MAC address and/or DHCP to create unique EPC codes. Such a system incurs non-deterministic delays and is not suitable for embedding within an RFID encoder where the operator depends on maintaining a regular and predictable cadence in the tag commissioning process.
So, despite recent advances in RFID technology, the state-of-the-art does not fully address the needs of simple, efficient, economical, high-volume, reliable deployment and commissioning of RFID transponders and wireless sensors. Large-scale adoption of RFID transponders depends on systems utilizing reliable, low-cost transponders deployed at thousands of distributed locations that implement simple and efficient manual transponder commissioning means. Such systems should further include processes for efficient commissioning of batches of RFID transponders, without the need for realtime wireless connectivity.